RCVS legislation change consultation

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Bob Russell — Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:13:02 GMT

How nice it would be to believe the RCVS is there to protect the profession. An honorable regulator would accept that the regulated would support reasonable steps taken to preserve the good name of the profession. A good name is acquired by doing a job as well as possible.

The profession has always been highly respected, even in this age of social media. The regulator seems to be losing its way and appears to believe it is better than the profession as a whole. It seems to want to be a police force.

A really good point has been made about who is going to now regulate the regulator? It used to be us, the profession that kept them in check. In a world where council sees itself all powerful and able to change the way it works at will, it risks becoming unaccountable. That is where it stands at present in my opinion.

The failure of most of the profession to engage in elections appears to allow carte blanche to those on council.

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

David Bailey — Thu, 11 Feb 2021 09:51:06 GMT

We all enjoy the right to privacy. This is a European human right that still applies in the uk. Any body, person or organisation cannot limit an individuals access to that right without a good reason or sufficient cause. In some cases search warrants are needed and even then if entry is made and arrests are collected and stacked in the waiting paddy wagon, the arrested individual has rights. Any organisation that has the power to enter or seek entry must be regulated by an ombudsman type body. This created a situation Where the Rcvs, in gaining or seeking the right of power of entry may then need to then be monitored by another body to endure fairness in the exercising of that power. The regulator is seeking to be regulated. The disciplinary process does take into account the amount of cooperation reflected in the investigation from all parties and this is often reflected in the sanction or the decision they find. The VDS provides advice to protect the individual. PII is mandatory and the VDS are experienced providers. The RCVS is there to protect the profession and not the individual.

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Bob Russell — Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:00:58 GMT

We have the VDS guide on the wall (now buried) which tells staff what to do should the DC arrive unannounced. My staff are authorised to make a cup of tea or coffee for them while they wait in the waiting room. They would be admitted only on advice from VDS however we are always quite proud to show people round the practice under normal circumstances!!

If the DC were able to go to a magistrate and show sufficient evidence for entry I would comply. Does this mean the RCVS are going to employ a 'Police' force?

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:03:32 GMT

[quote userid="9515" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29649/rcvs-legislation-change-consultation/228439#228439"]It would great if as a group we could consider each major point in turn over the coming weeks.[/quote]

Sarah Keir

I'm now going to start 5 new discussion threads: one for each section of the Legislative Reform Consultation report, so we can keep each thread on topic. When I think the discussion has run its course, I will will try and summarise the main points, and use some of what we discuss in my article (I wont quote anyone without permission).

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Alastair Welch — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 20:58:25 GMT

I would

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Dinu Catilina — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 20:51:41 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29649/rcvs-legislation-change-consultation/228440#228440"]I mean you can't stop someone coming in to public areas of the clinic, but I would have thought that you could make them wait there fairly indefinitely while they read the tomes of health and safety guidance that they must sign off on before setting foot in the staff only areas? Perhaps a verbal quiz to ensure they fully understand it for added safety? Oh look, it's time for their flight back to London now. Shame they didn't call ahead.[/quote]

Who would dare to do this if the visit comes from the DC to investigate in the ongoing case against you?

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 19:55:11 GMT

I was thinking the same!

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Beats — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 19:48:13 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29649/rcvs-legislation-change-consultation/228437#228437"]– the right for RCVS investigators to force their way into a practice[/quote]

Unworkable?

I mean you can't stop someone coming in to public areas of the clinic, but I would have thought that you could make them wait there fairly indefinitely while they read the tomes of health and safety guidance that they must sign off on before setting foot in the staff only areas? Perhaps a verbal quiz to ensure they fully understand it for added safety? Oh look, it's time for their flight back to London now. Shame they didn't call ahead.

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Sarah Keir — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 18:52:34 GMT

@Arlo Guthrie It would great if as a group we could consider each major point in turn over the coming weeks. Currently I'm overwhelmed just looking at it and so am procrastinating about starting. One of the biggest problems I see is that these proposed changes are so broad ranging and no specifics provided as to what the intention is behind the change so we are left guessing and that leads to dark thoughts.

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 18:48:55 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29649/rcvs-legislation-change-consultation/228437#228437"]I wish now I had kept a copy of my responses.[/quote]

Me too!

On first reading, I was left thinking the two things I highlighted were the ones that are doubtless going to be viewed as 'a bad thing', and there were a number of others that might or might not be a good or bad thing depending.

Incidentally, anyone ever heard any situation in the history of the profession where a vet was a danger to the public?

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 18:26:16 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29649/rcvs-legislation-change-consultation/228436#228436"]Is there anything else in there which you, any of you, have concerns about?[/quote]

Many things, not all of which I can remember offhand. I wish now I had kept a copy of my responses.

From memory right now –

– reduction in quorum for DC to only 3 persons. (Bad)

– the right for RCVS investigators to force their way into a practice (Bad, except in extreme cases and only after a process similar to the police obtaining a warrant).

– the right to demand information (Good if it's a matter of getting information out of secretive corporate head offices, bad if it's a right to insist on aggressive questioning of junior staff).

– the power, when a VS has been found guilty of SPM and sentenced to a period of suspension from the Register, to review him or her at the end of a period of suspension and increase the period if they feel like it.

– arising out of all this, the bias built in to DC hearings against an accused who defends himself and in favour of one who grovels.

– the dubious value of excessive and draconian enforcement of CPD;

– enforcement of "best practice" rather than "not unacceptable" leading to fear and defensive medicine becoming usual

– enforcement of "practice standards" (whose standards?) leaving no room for the unusual or eccentric

_ "revalidation" – sounds fine, doesn't it, until you start to consider all the implications especially the implications for you, yourself

There was more.

– regulation of the "the vet-lead team". Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Suppose some of the para-professionals mentioned don't want to be regulated by RCVS?

– delegation to RVNs who are not in the employment of the veterinary practice (not necessary, and makes nonsense of the whole principle of the RVN exemptions so far.)

– RVNs permitted to castrate cats. No! Why? (I know, I'm on a loser here.)

– RVNs permitted, in effect and to all intents and purposes, to induce and run general anaesthesia all by themselves ("supervision", ha ha).

There was still more but that's all I can recall for the time being.

Except this, which I put in to my response to several points:

"'Oos to pay, that's what I want to know. " Oh, silly me, it's us of course.

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:49:26 GMT

I am now setting out on this journey ... one of my rare forays into more investigative journalism (rather that just stripping hyperbole from press releases).

I have just been reading the LWP consultation report, (https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/legislation-working-party-report) before taking part in the consultation itself.

There are the two (obvious) big things that really stand out in the report - the proposed change to the burden of proof in DCs, and the power to suspend vets.

Is there anything else in there which you, any of you, have concerns about?

RE: RCVS legislation change consultation

Bob Russell — Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:47:17 GMT

IT'S TUCKED IN INCONSPICUOUSLY TOWARDS THE END.

Yes I do mean to shout!!

You really need to check every section even if you don't comment on each section. It does take time but this might be the only time individuals can comment.